August 23, 2005

Altruism and Organ Donations

Johngalt's extremely candid comment in our running discussion of altruism has made my heart grow to three times its size.

I post a link to an article I suspect we will both like: The Limits of Altruism and the Power of Self-Interest (I bet I got him at the title!)

For the last thirty years, many well-meaning organizations have spent lots of time and money trying to convince more Americans to donate their organs after they die. These efforts have relied exclusively on appeals to altruism, and they have failed. It's time to use self-interest to relieve the organ shortage.

The demand for organ transplants has skyrocketed, but the number of donated organs has remained relatively flat. As a result, over 89,000 people are on the waiting list for an organ transplant in the United States. Another 40,000 names will be added to the list in the next twelve months. In 2004, 6,529 people on the waiting list died waiting for a transplant. Another 1,594 were removed from the list because, while they were waiting, they became too sick to undergo a transplant. More than half of the people who need transplants in the United States die before they get one.


The authors suggest that a financial market is over debated and they prefer a system where preference will be given to registered organ donors.

I like the idea of incentives and I could live with the one they suggest.

I, however, would prefer financial incentives. It might seem importune, but the fact is that markets works and that we have a currency-based economy, why not use it? This seems to comport with the rest of the article.

After all, we use the incentive of self-interest to increase the supply of food, clothing, shelter, and transportation. There is every reason to think it will also increase the supply of organ donors.

Markets work, it's a wonder we are so afraid to employ them.

Posted by jk at August 23, 2005 5:23 PM

It's no wonder JK. If scarce organs went to those who could afford most to pay for them then "only the rich could be saved." Better to let them go to waste and save nobody, don't you think?

Posted by: johngalt at August 25, 2005 3:15 PM | What do you think? [1]